- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I need some explanation of this transcript
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:23 pm to GumboPot
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:23 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Crowdstike is the Ukrainian IT firm that the DNC hired to "investigate" the DNC server that was supposedly hacked by the Russians and Russia transferred those emails to Wikileaks.
It's the official narrative however the FBI never requested to investigate or acquire a warrant to investigate the server. They remain disinterested but it is the basis of the Special Counsel to look into the 2016 election.
Wow.
So do you think this was a favor requested to by Hillary/Obama/DNC to help further the Russian conspiracy?
quote:
You know who transferred the DNC emails to the thumb drive to give to Wikileaks, right?
Is it a guy that liked to wear patriotic clothing?
2
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:24 pm to The Maj
quote:
If Biden did what was claimed
There is audio/(video?) of Joe bragging about what he did. Either he is telling the truth or he lied about what he said he did.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:25 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
The liberals on twitter are convinced this is bad. The only thing that seems suspect to me is the Biden thing, as Biden is the probable Dem nominee, and it isn't a good look for anyone, anywhere, to ask that your rival be investigated. Yet the Biden claims on their own are worth an investigation (at the minimum) and Biden dropping out, as it seems like blatant corruption. I suppose the key question is if there is an official investigation into Hunter Biden, as well as when that investigation started, and if that investigation was independent of Biden announcing his run for president. I suspect that there is some sort of official investigation, otherwise, I don't think the WH would release the memo to the transcript like this. If this was one of many conversations Trump had with his Ukrainian counterpart, that might support the contention that Trump was just pressuring them (as in doing the work of a politician) to help in an ongoing investigation, an investigation that the Ukrainians might not want to get involved in, lest there be repercussions if Trump isn't re-elected.
This is pretty much my line of thought
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:27 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
So do you think this was a favor requested to by Hillary/Obama/DNC to help further the Russian conspiracy?
Likely yes but I have no confirmation. However if I started digging I could come up with a lot of convincing evidence. I'd start with the Page and Strzok text and the "insurance plan".
quote:
Is it a guy that liked to wear patriotic clothing?
Yes.
And it makes sense because he was a Bernbot and was pissed that DNC rigged the DNC primary for Hillary.
This post was edited on 9/25/19 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:27 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
Didn’t the DOJ come out today and say nothing Trump did in the conversation was illegal?
Not sure, but I wanted to hear what the argument would be about how what he said constituted an impeachable offense without all the hysterical spin by the media.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:28 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:Yes, and Barr wasn’t a part of making that determination either.
Didn’t the DOJ come out today and say nothing Trump did in the conversation was illegal?
This is from the Washington Post.
quote:
Justice officials said Mr. Barr was aware of the inspector general’s referral, but he did not make the final decision to reject initiating a criminal investigation of the president.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:29 pm to jmcwhrter
quote:
So their theory is that Trump's INTENTION was to withhold this aid until Ukraine agreed to look into past crimes by Biden, which would sink his presidential bid.. so therefore, Trump is using his office to influential a political race
At we learned this morning that the DNI's office sent a criminal referral to DOJ (which I think had to have been approved by Dan Coates), presumably for a campaign finance violation, and that DOJ declined to charge.
This post was edited on 9/25/19 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:29 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Likely yes but I have no confirmation. However if I started digging I could come up with a lot of convincing evidence. I'd start with the Page and Strzok text and the "insurance plan".
That would be a complete bombshell if proven to be true.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:29 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Didn’t the DOJ come out today and say nothing Trump did in the conversation was illegal?
Yes.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:30 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
At we learned this morning that the DNI's office (which I think had to have been approved by Dan Coates) sent a criminal referral to DOJ, presumably for a campaign finance violation, and that DOJ declined to charge.
Lamo… you are like a dog chasing its tail...
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:30 pm to TigerDoc
quote:They found that there was no violation, not that they declined to charge.
At we learned this morning that the DNI's office sent a criminal referral to DOJ (which I think had to have been approved by Dan Coates), presumably for a campaign finance violation, and that DOJ declined to charge.
This post was edited on 9/25/19 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:30 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
So do you think this was a favor requested to by Hillary/Obama/DNC to help further the Russian conspiracy?
It was a way to have the Russian hacking of the server "verified" without having to give the server to the FBI.
But I'm confused how you dont know this. There is a 49,000 post thread on this board that discussed this in late 2017.
You know one you mock people about.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:30 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
At we learned this morning that the DNI's office sent a criminal referral to DOJ (which I think had to have been approved by Dan Coates), presumably for a campaign finance violation, and that DOJ declined to charge.
How was this tied to campaign finance violation?
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:32 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
That would be a complete bombshell if proven to be true.
Trump is more interested in the Crowdstike angle than the Biden angle IMO. The Crowdstike sever issue ropes a lot more people in and demonstrates the corruptions and malfeasance of a lot of people.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:33 pm to 2 Jugs
quote:
It was a way to have the Russian hacking of the server "verified" without having to give the server to the FBI.
It sounds like a legit theory
quote:
But I'm confused how you dont know this. There is a 49,000 post thread on this board that discussed this in late 2017.
You know one you mock people about.
I just like to tease the hardcore folks about it. I've said on multiple occasions that there is likely a lot of truth in what gets posted in there but it's a shame that it gets overshadowed by a lot of kookiness.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:34 pm to upgrayedd
LINK
quote:
The Justice Department’s Criminal Division has already investigated President Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president about Joseph R. Biden and concluded Mr. Trump did not violate campaign finance laws, officials announced Wednesday.
quote:
And a separate division of the department has also ruled that the administration did not break the law by failing to quickly share a whistleblower’s complaint with Congress, saying the matter didn’t meet the definition of “urgent” that would trigger the law.
quote:
And indeed that happened. The Justice Department’s criminal division said it probed the conversation as a possible violation of campaign finance laws, wondering if Mr. Trump had solicited a contribution of sorts by asking Ukraine to probe an opponent. The department said it concluded that wasn’t the case. The review came in late August when intelligence officials referred the matter to the Justice Department’s criminal division to see if the president’s comments violated laws barring candidates requesting assistance from foreign sources.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:35 pm to upgrayedd
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:35 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Trump is more interested in the Crowdstike angle than the Biden angle IMO. The Crowdstike sever issue ropes a lot more people in and demonstrates the corruptions and malfeasance of a lot of people.
Man, if this caused Biden to drop out and busted open the Russia conspiracy as a complete setup by Obama and the IC, it would be the biggest political win in history.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:38 pm to upgrayedd
Earlier in the transcript he mentions reciprocity a few times. Why is his personal attorney going to be contacting Ukraine? Also there are documents and briefing materials for both parties leading up to the call that may shed more light...they don’t just randomly get on the horn.
I think those that see the call as “nothing” and those that see it as a slam dunk for impeachment are being overly partisan. My view right now is that it is troubling...and that the current state of our politics and leaders is total and complete shite. Is there no one among us but these shitheads to pick from??
I think those that see the call as “nothing” and those that see it as a slam dunk for impeachment are being overly partisan. My view right now is that it is troubling...and that the current state of our politics and leaders is total and complete shite. Is there no one among us but these shitheads to pick from??
This post was edited on 9/25/19 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 12:40 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Nothing illegal.
Why would asking about that be illegal?
I don't know. That's why I was asking.
Some Dems are trying to claim Trump asked for something "of value" dealing with an election. That would breach legality.
DOJ reviewed and axed that thesis.
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News